+ Sponsors

Monday, 05 November 2012

The Most Important Lens of 2012

I help people shop for cameras for a living, and I'm quite good at it if I do say so myself, yet when I find myself shopping for cameras myself I find it exhausting...almost distressing, even. I wonder if other people feel the same way.

When I groused yesterday that the weather would probably be bad for my five-day window with the rental D800E, a number of people jumped eagerly in to admonish me that "bad weather makes good pictures," in the words of Sam Abell's dad.

To which my grumpy response is, yeah, sometimes. Crappy featureless gray days with crappy light don't make good pictures.

And of course this morning I got the notice that the D800E has shipped and in en route to TOP World Headquarters—and it's a crappy featureless gray day with crappy light. Figures. Now I have to start hoping anxiously that the weather changes.

Even worse: just when I had decided on Mario and Zombies, something happens to make Final Fantasy and Japanese imports look that much better. In other words, no sooner do I settle my mind on Nikon for a big, full-size, full-frame camera, than this happens...

This won't be exciting for most people. But all of us, or most of us, have "mainstay lenses," the lens we do most of our work with, the lens that suits the way we see. Oren put it succinctly when he said "for my taste, it will be the most important lens introduction of the year." Dammit. For my taste too.

The waters grow cloudier. My grumpiness level rises. I even have a Canon film camera, that I could use this lens on too.

I shall keep you posted. Unless of course my head explodes first.

Mike(Thanks to Oren Grad)

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Murray: "Let's see if your excitement lasts beyond the release of Canon's pricing."

Comments

The new Canon 40 2.8 pancake is the best lens I have bought from them. It is simply a delight to use. Nice sharpness all around wide open, small, makes your camera look cheap and funky, which is a good thing if you like street shooting, and it goes for 150 dollars right now in a B&H deal. Can´t beat that with a probably expensive 5mm shorter, bigger, and heavier lens.

This rumor has got me so excited! I am already dreaming of teaming up this 35mm with the excellent 85mm f1.8. If this lens comes to fruition, I know what camera to get in 2013. Oh, and I almost forgot the lovely 40mm f2.8 pancake for a truly light weight outfit.

What you need is the innards of the D800E inside a smaller container, like a Leica or Fuji or GF1 clone, so you won't have to hire a Sherpa guide every time you go for a walk. I keep going over to Stephen Gandy's site to see if Cosina or some other rogue company has decided to do something radical like that, but so far, no joy. Maybe that peculiar Pentax/Ricoh combo will do something unexpected. By that I mean something ever more unexpected than usual.

I own a 2nd hand Olympics E3 because I end up going to car rallies, where you're either in rain or dust, so I wanted a sealed camera. My neck always hurts on the drive home. I know, I know, I should do some neck strengthening exercises, I'll add that to the list right away.

If this is true, it also makes it very likely that, after producing an IS version of the 24, 28 and 35, Canon will also make IS versions of the 50/1.4, the 85/ 1.8, and perhaps also the 135/2. Could become a pretty compact and attractiv system, made of lenses originally made in the late 1980's...

I definitely find IS valuable at the wide as well as long ends of P&S camera zooms like on the LX3. The ways I hold DSLRs are a lot different, but my guess is that I'd find IS valuable there, too; I've just never been able to try (have only two IS lenses, one wide end is 70mm, one 120mm, so no normal to wide test cases in my kit).

The lens of my dreams. The lens that I have been waiting for all my photographic life. The lens, or the lack thereof, that made me spent a fortune on other lenses - notably a Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS, just for using it at 70mm, stabilised. Why 70mm? Well, because - just as 35mm - 70 is very close to 50.

Although I admit that my existing lenses carried over from my film cameras made the decision a no-brainer, I think that I would have still purchased the Minolta and Sony digital SLR cameras that I have. The reason - the in-body stabilization that works with all of my lenses, regardless of the focal length.

Mike
Ive been waiting for you to write about this camera as I really enjoy TOP and your insights and opinions on all things photographic.and I am a happy user of a D800e. I was disappointed to read that you chose the new uber expensive 35 f1.4 instead of the much smaller but amazing performer at 35mm the f2.0 AF-D. The d800e with this version of the Nikkor 35mm lens is a great and not too big to me walk around setup.

Everyone is pilin' on here, but I do have to say that the film camera is a weak, if humorous, note. When you can get the fantastic F100 for around 120 bucks nowadays, there's no reason to base digital buying on film bodies. They're all cheap now:) I would say that the cost differential 'twixt a canon 35 1.4 and the Nikon IS worth thinking about, as it's certain substantial, and there's far more used examples to pick from.

I don't get it. Canon's existing 35/2 is an under the radar crowd favorite and the lens that spends the most time on my camera. Canon's 35/1.4 is a legend. Both are great for available light, especially with the high ISO capability we have today. Can't see parting with my money just for the IS. This lens will have to be stellar to make a splash IMHO.

My best work was done with the Sigma 20-35mm on film bodies. I like the 20mm view, but I also like 28mm and 35mm. That gave me all three.

Now I have the Sigma 10-20mm on the K-5. That covers much the same views - not quite but close - 15, 18, 20-21, 24, 28. That's the way I see. Yes, a bit big and heavy but I'm used to heavy cameras from the film days. If I could only have one lens, I think it would be 28mm. Or 35mm. Or 20mm. Oh hell ...

PS, I just clicked on the Lens Work book to have a look. Back in the 80s and 90s, I used to have all those books - put out by Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Minolta. Thick glossy, heavy and absolutely drool worthy. I remember buying the Nikon one during a holiday in Bangkok and lugging it home!

In terms of images I thought Nikon's was the best by a fair margin, pro quality, followed by Minolta and Olympus. Their strength was the macro and flash stuff. I thought Canon's images were very amateur. I don't know what they're like now. Minolta Mirror is greatly missed.

The rumor looks like it was solid - dpreview has the announcement. Maybe that decision to rent instead of buy will prove to be serendipitous. Of course, you'll have to remember that you were getting into this for b&w ... it would be something other than serendipitous if you ended up with a full frame DSLR that doesn't do b&w any better than your previous cameras just because of a new lens.

I can't begin to imagine why anyone would want to shoot a lens like that on a big fat ugly FF body when the Zeiss 24/1.8 is already available for the NEX, the Fujinon 23/1.4 will be available for the X-cameras soon, and the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH and CV 35/1.2 have been available for quite some time.

Yes, Hurray. Take a decent $300 lens and add IS. Now it's $850. Same as the 24mm f/2.8 and the 28mm f/2.8. I just can't wait until I can no longer afford a single Canon lens for my cameras. My cup overfloweth with joy.

The other advantage of IS that people seldom mention is that it can allow you to stop down further than you'd otherwise be able to. With a 35mm lens I'm often working very close and need f/5.6 or so where the light would normally only allow about f/2.8.

I understand our exitement. 35mm and f 2.0 is a hard to beat combo (waiting for the 1.8/17 mft myself) BUT...
Didnt you in an earlier post say something about Contax and their non-existent line of lenses? Onthe plus side, there is no hurry and if this lens materializes you can start deciding which digital body to put it on. Have fun with the D800E

YES! At last my dream lens with dream specifications! Although I would have been just as happy if it was 'only' F2.8...I will probably use it most between F5.6 to F11. Now even Canons new cameras (6d and 5d3) have the the things I have missed since the day of film...'quiet' shutters, and in the case of the 6d, a smaller form factor. Is this combination of 5d3 or 6d and new 35mm f2 IS lens the ultimate street machine? Me thinks so...move over aps-c and 4/3rds, the Big Boys have arrived!

According to everybody's tests and reviews out there, the new 24mm and 28mm are only average in term of IQ. This IQ in 2012 at that very high price point is just not competitive at all. Recent lenses from Fuji, Olympus, Nikon are just much more value for the money. It is likely that this 35/2 will be the same.

I bet the 35/2 Zeiss of the RX1 as well as the future 23mm f/1.4 from Fuji will both smoke the canon lens. And there is also the new 35/1.4 from Sigma. Suddenly 35mm equivalent lenses everywhere ^_^

I figure there's no such thing as bad weather - weather is always interesting. I call those "crappy grey days" non-weather.

One of the interesting things about climate change in my part of the UK is that we always seem to get some sort of weather now - the cliché of endless English drizzle seems to be a thing of the past ... hope I haven't jinxed it.

Nikon, Nikon, calling Nikon...where are your moderately priced, single focal length wide angles in the "G" configuration and in the f/2 or f/2.8 range....no where...

Recent reports of the Nikon new 28mm "G", not even being as sharp as their older shaft drive auto-focus saddens me, and needless at 1.8, why? Why not just make the 1.4 and then the 2.8 for cheap...who are the monkeys behind the marketing at these companies?

It's all in the lenses. Last night I looked at a buddy's work shot 8 years ago with a Canon 10D (aps-c and 6 megapixel), converted to black and white, and printed 16X20 (jpeg originals too), and I was just stunned. The megapixel race is a ruse. Just make the lenses...

I just bought my last bit of photo gear for the year (I swear!), the Pentax FA 31mm F1.8. It's a wonderful hunk of glass and metal that acts as a semi-wide normal on the Pentax K-01 and K-5 and a long normal when shooting video with the Panasonic GH-2. And one of these days Pentax will come out with a full-frame digital for which it will act as a semi-wide.

I have the 35 1.4L Canon. It is big and expensive. But gosh-darn it is SUPERB. You already have a film Canon - get the 5D Classic and use this gem of a lens on both ;) you did mention lovely B&W results from the 5D... Oh. and I do hope that the film body is a 1nRS.

If canon is going to put IS in all its lenses, why not break down and put it in the body instead? I know they say lens specific IS is better, but I've got to say the body based IS in my Olympus OM-D is great, and all of a sudden all my m4/3 lenses are stabilized.

> If canon is going to put IS in all its lenses, why not break down and put it in the body instead?

Easy. Because the lenses are more expensive and the R&D is already there. Why sell a lens without IS but with an extended product life for $300 when you could sell the IS enabled version for $500 while only investing pennies into additional R&D and have it redmade every time the old IS becomes "obsolete"? You could in fact obsolete it by not supporting it in newer bodies. This is capitalism, my friend.

I love my old 35mm non-is canon f2.0. You will often find it attached to my faithful 5D for the purpose of walking around without being loaded down with too much crap. I love the close ups, portraits, semi wide angle that it shoots so well. This ought to be a sweet lens for the full frame folks out there.